In the main Christian Philosophy & Ethics forum, I was "talking" about the incest laws in Leviticus 18 & 20. Two things stood out as strange to my modern English-speaking mind. First, the ban is not about consanguinity, since there are more verses concerning in-laws than blood relatives, and the euphemism "uncover the nakedness" cannot just mean have sex with, because you not only uncover the woman's nakedness, but also her husband's or father's (or occassionally mother's).
I remarked that it looks like it is not that consaguinous marriage is forbidden, but rather that adultery is even more shameful when the cuckold is a member of your own household. Another reason that it is not likely we are talking about marriage is the levirate law. If we were talking about marriage, the in-law would have to be divorced or widowed. But under Levirate Law, a man was not only allowed to marry his brother's widow, but under certain circumstances, required to. So it must be talking about an in-law who is still currently married to a living spouse.
And "uncovering the nakedness" while still referring to forbidden sex, would basically be a phrase similar to our own "airing the family's dirty linen in public."
I also happened to mention that in his rant against Jonathan's involvement with David, Saul accused him of, among other things, uncovering his mothers nakedness. In general, the rant sounds like Saul believes that Jonathan and David are having an affair, but Crazy Liz remarked that the "uncovering his mother's nakedness" part may be because David's wife Michal (who would be the one cuckolded) is Jonathan's sister. It certainly strengthen the case that Saul believed they were lovers.
Of course, Saul was half-mad at the time, so it's hard to say if what he believed should be taken as objective evidence of an affair.
Thoughts, anyone?
I remarked that it looks like it is not that consaguinous marriage is forbidden, but rather that adultery is even more shameful when the cuckold is a member of your own household. Another reason that it is not likely we are talking about marriage is the levirate law. If we were talking about marriage, the in-law would have to be divorced or widowed. But under Levirate Law, a man was not only allowed to marry his brother's widow, but under certain circumstances, required to. So it must be talking about an in-law who is still currently married to a living spouse.
And "uncovering the nakedness" while still referring to forbidden sex, would basically be a phrase similar to our own "airing the family's dirty linen in public."
I also happened to mention that in his rant against Jonathan's involvement with David, Saul accused him of, among other things, uncovering his mothers nakedness. In general, the rant sounds like Saul believes that Jonathan and David are having an affair, but Crazy Liz remarked that the "uncovering his mother's nakedness" part may be because David's wife Michal (who would be the one cuckolded) is Jonathan's sister. It certainly strengthen the case that Saul believed they were lovers.
Of course, Saul was half-mad at the time, so it's hard to say if what he believed should be taken as objective evidence of an affair.
Thoughts, anyone?